From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 04/13] arch/x86: add syscall_get_arch to syscall.h
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:16:24 -0700
Message-ID: <4F84F788.3020702@zytor.com>
References: <1331781125-15658-1-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <1331781125-15658-5-git-send-email-wad@chromium.org> <4F6F7362.6030402@zytor.com> <CABqD9hZgnrKFY_Wei-ysU=Dy7Og2iEemnqPvcQ14M0+vL65gHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, arnd@arndb.de,
        davem@davemloft.net, mingo@redhat.com, oleg@redhat.com,
        peterz@infradead.org, rdunlap@xenotime.net, mcgrathr@chromium.org,
        tglx@linutronix.de, luto@mit.edu, eparis@redhat.com,
        serge.hallyn@canonical.com, djm@mindrot.org, scarybeasts@gmail.com,
        indan@nul.nu, pmoore@redhat.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        corbet@lwn.net, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, markus@chromium.org,
        coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, keescook@chromium.org
To: Will Drewry <wad@chromium.org>
Return-path: <kernel-hardening-return-1242-glkh-kernel-hardening=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com>
List-Post: <mailto:kernel-hardening@lists.openwall.com>
List-Help: <mailto:kernel-hardening-help@lists.openwall.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:kernel-hardening-unsubscribe@lists.openwall.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:kernel-hardening-subscribe@lists.openwall.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABqD9hZgnrKFY_Wei-ysU=Dy7Og2iEemnqPvcQ14M0+vL65gHQ@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On 04/10/2012 08:13 PM, Will Drewry wrote:
> 
> Now that I've seen is_ia32_task(), it appears to be exactly the same as above:
> (1)  If we're x86_32, it's ia32
> (2)  If we're x86_64, ia32 == !!(status & TS_COMPAT)
> (3)  Otherwise, it's x86_64, including x32
> 
> Am I missing something? Should is_ia32_task(void) take a task_struct?
> Right now, I don't see any reason to change the code, as posted, but
> maybe I am mis-reading?
> 

is_compat_task() is true for x32, is_ia32_task() is false.

	-hpa